START and its Concerns

The apparent paragraph of concern in the new START Treaty is:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

 This apparently is the phrase which has many concerned. Explicitly is says nothing. Implicitly it states a strong nexus between offensive and defensive weapons. Having been through these discussions in the 1970s with the CTBT negotiations, one can imagine the intent of each party and the hours and drafts of this statement. Each party believes it contains what they had intended but like so many diplomatic statements its meaning is vague at best.

The other issue is that this is in preamble, not the body of the agreement. Thus for English law advocates it is meaningless yet for Russian readers it sets an unchangeable path forward. How this would be interpreted is an issue and it is an issue for the future. Will there be disputes, indeed, there always are. Is this worth signing, the real issue is China and not Russia. That is the problem.

Yikes! I Agree with Krugman

Well it is the week before Christmas and things have come somewhat to a halt but in checking out my Google Reader I came across a Krugman blog I agree with, perhaps a first. He states:

Still, at the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy (after all, I am an old fuddy-duddy), there are very real virtues to old-fashioned email. You can convey a lot of information, if necessary — and it’s information that stays available in the archive. Plus, the lack of immediacy is, given the way I live, a virtue. In general, I can’t break what I’m doing to talk to you or text you; so an asynchronous form of communication, which I can respond to when convenient, is a huge advantage.

 This is in response to a NY Times piece this week regarding the younger generation sending instant messages. Well I have disabled my messages, I think, hope Verizon hears this, and if one wants to reach me then you must send an email or even call. And a readable email please, none of those bouncing smiley faces. Short, to the point, from you, and with some structure so as to be readable.

I am reminded of Umberto Eco and his novels on Semiotics where signs reflect the civilization. Eco is much better than that DaVinci story fellow but alas one cannot hope for a great deal out of pulp novelists.

You see, email is better than letter writing, you get a chance to look at it and revise it, with a letter you start and go until finished, especially if you use pen and ink which I do, yes, pen and ink, black, blue black and even blue. When I ran my international companies I was sure each day to send each of my grandchildren a letter from where ever I was and with a local stamp, so that hopefully a hundred years hence on some antiques roadshow they can pull out this pile and reflect upon the early 21st century. E mail lacks that sense, they have no stamps, and instant messaging is like whispering in the hall ways.

There clearly is a place for every thing, but one can call also, for a call is two way and interactive and reduces overall ambiguity, or social entropy. Instant messages often lead to WTF type responses.

Well That's a Good Idea: ROTC

The Boston Globe reports today:

Harvard University will welcome ROTC back to campus now that Congress has repealed a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, university president Drew Faust said...The move will end a four-decade standoff between one of the nation’s most prestigious universities and its armed forces. The tension began over the Vietnam War and continued in recent years as university administrators, faculty, and students objected to what they saw as discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The above was the 1940 class of NROTC at Harvard, the class which contributed some of the bravest men to the Navy during WW II. If memory serves me correct the reason for the removal was anti-war politics and had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Ironically when I wrote the history of the USS Albert W Grant, DD-649, there were "gays" on board most ships in the Navy. It seems that everyone knew but as long as everyone did their job no mention was ever made of it. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" scheme from Clinton seems to have been an artifact that brought the issue to the fore.

Having men and women in the military from all colleges is the best for the military as well as the colleges. It brings in some of the best of the best. Hopefully this move will improve Harvard as well as the Military. The history of great heroes from Harvard may again continue.

Broadband Speed: What Does It Mean?

Last week we commented on the CWA report on broadband speed. Clearly the CWA has its agenda, what union doe not, but the issue is one that must deal with reality. Today I saw a note in another on-line commentary which states the following:

Also, while the broadband sector still has four years to meet the FCC’s 2015 goal for 50 Mb/s downstream and 20 Mb/s upstream to 80 percent of households, it has a long way to go--only 1 percent of broadband connections currently qualify.

The data, compiled by SpeedMatters.org, suggests that the median U.S. download speed of 3.0 Mb/s and median upload speed was 595 kb/s outs the U.S, in about 25th place globally for broadband speed. 

Let us address the two point made.

First, the FCC goal of 50 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up. Nice but where is it to come from and where is it to go to? You see these are networks, they go from point A to point B or amongst some group. I noted just a few days ago about the growing of video. Video does not eat up that much bandwidth unless you are trying to create lecture hall presentations, viewable by anyone who is say 350 feet away! Thus the first issue of this first point is what are you going to transmit? Second is that what is sent or received must transit a backbone. Well if we want every person to have 50 Mbps down, and most likely they mean instantaneously and simultaneously, then that is a real lot of backbone, no wonder CWA is happy, why not just have a fiber from every home to every other home, that is a real lot of fiber, just in the US, but why stop there. Thus the first point has lots of unreasonableness about it. The uses are ill defined and the ultimate resources required to adequately use the local resource have never been considered. That is what happens when non-technical people with no real experience come up with nonsense like this.

Second, the slow speeds measured, they make no sense. They are effectively DSL numbers, the median is biased by the way the study was done, in my opinion. The US is not Korea or Finland. There is Montana, North Dakota, even Vermont and Maine. In all there are regions of a few people, and the demand is at best driven by a vocal group who chose isolation but want others to pay for their benefits.

This whole argument is rant with assumptions not even the slightest bit based upon facts. Tis a shame!

Frankly this whole argument is akin to some individual who owns a Porsche and wants to drive it very fast, and he demands the town fix their roads so he can speed some 120 mph, and then he hits the interstate and it's jammed with rush hour traffic. Just because you can speed to the interstate does not mean you can or will or should speed all the way in I 80 from New York to San Francisco!

Two Years and Counting

It was two years ago today that I started this blog. Since then a few thousands of different people from 100+ countries have wandered by. Interesting and I thank them and hope they have gathered something.

The reason I started this was primarily the economic downturn and what I saw as the gross incompetence of economists to either understand it or respond to it. My opinion has gotten even stronger over this period. Also I saw that the incoming Administration was about to make changes in the US which people were not really ready for nor did they understand. I was not disappointed. First was health care, something I have been studying for decades, and was concerned about especially since the failed Hillary Care. I believe that the fight there is far from over. Also from time to time I comment on things out of the norm.

Well, just a thanks to my readers and I look forward to 2011. Hopefully we decrease the deficit and debt and get the health care bill declared unconstitutional and get something to work.

China and Its Blue Water Fleet

China presents an interesting challenge, aka "threat", to the United States. The PLA is well over three times the size of the US military and the PLAN, its Navy has been building the elements of a full fledged blue water navy, except it started with a littoral fleet and subs.

The Financial Times announces China's plans for its first full fledged element of true blue water, namely a carrier. The FT states:

China has launched an ambitious plan to build an aircraft carrier, the country has revealed for the first time, in a move that will heighten international scrutiny of the rapid expansion of its naval power....The decision, which has far-reaching implications for China’s defense strategy and diplomatic relations, was disclosed in a single sentence buried at the end of a lengthy book published by a government agency earlier this year.

For almost fifty years the United States Foreign policy was dominated by the existence of the Soviet Union. It was a focusing factor which created camps whose approaches differed significantly. However the threat was real, quantifiable and focused. In the wake of 9/11 the focus shifted somewhat to Muslim Terrorism, with the Afghan war and the expansion into Iraq. However it was clear that countries such as Iran and North Korea presented well-articulated threats to the United States and that their threat levels were exacerbated by nuclear intentions and capabilities.

However as the USSR had taken a strong role for half a century that role in many ways has been replaced by China, but with substantial differences.

1. China has a massive land army and the Chinese military has its hands in many commercial enterprises as well. The Chinese Army has over the sixty years since Korea, mastered the art of war over large land masses.

2. China has been dramatically expanding its Navy, the PLAN,  and turning it from a littoral fleet to a world class “blue water” fleet. While the United States has downsized its fleet to less than 130 ships at sea worldwide at any time, and no more than 350 in its total arsenal, China has several times the number. Now with the introduction of a carrier fleet it moves the equation significantly.

3. China has recently shown its capabilities in space, from its well outfitted nuclear missile arsenals, to its clear moves on colonizing the moon and beyond. China has the financial, intellectual, and technical resources to excel in this area.

4. China has been behind the scenes and most likely an active manipulator of both Iran and North Korea. China is a supplier in direct and indirect ways of the technical components and know how required for the development and deployment of nuclear capabilities in these countries. These actions are at the core of the destabilizing influences that China has taken.

5. China has taken strong investment positions across the African continent securing raw materials and mineral interests, as well as assuring political support if and when required.

6. A large number of Chinese students come to the United States for graduate training and then due to both US and Chinese policies return to China. There are examples of some Chinese students being funded for doctoral programs in the US by US Military agency funds, ARPA for example, and then returning back to China to play significant roles in the same Chinese agencies.

7. China has developed a most sophisticated capability in cyber warfare, whether it is the ability to access highly sensitive systems and networks to the extreme ability or restructuring and reconfiguring overall global Internet traffic for its own purposes. As the US for years had hubbed its traffic on MAE East and West, China is clearly seeking such a hubbing for Asian and most likely global traffic. This will give China the ability to have significant control over global networks, commercial, financial, and otherwise.

8. The Chinese PLA has amassed a massive nuclear stockpile of both tactical and strategic weapons, and in many ways it surpasses what was presenting the United States during the Cold War period.

These issues are related primarily to the ability of China as a military force, as a threat to the United States as a military power. In many ways this is akin to the issues that we saw for fifty years with the Soviet Union. However, and this is a highly significant difference, and it is the economic and technological power that China also holds over the United States.

1. As is well known China is a major holder of US Public debt, well in excess of $ trillion.

2. Due to outsourcing, and off-shore manufacturing and assembly, China has become the dominant manufacturer of sophisticate high tech equipment, and its proximity to the most sensitive electronic equipment in the world. China as a maker of chips and an assembler of integrated systems can readily adapt those systems for its own purposes and as such when shipped internationally, China may then have control over many of the most sensitive commercial, financial and possibly military systems and networks.

3. China is the largest exporter of goods imported into the United States. With the ability to control its currency, China can and most likely will remain in that position and as such will get US currency flows to China for the good that China exports. China has complained that the reason it fails to import more is that there are restrictions on certain high tech imports. While that is true in part, another reason is the controlled Chinese economy.

As such, China is a more strategic threat to the United States than the old Soviet Union ever was. Yet the current Administration focuses on a Start Treaty which is between the United States and Russia, leaving the most significant player globally, China out of the mix. The current Administration and past Democratic Administrations have opened the doors to China to the transfer of technologies, directly and via the licensing of manufacturing capabilities in strategic areas, such a chip manufacturing and nano-technology.

The current Administration must take a look closely at the implications of these issue. The FT concludes with:

Beijing has recently silenced several military officers who had raised hackles earlier this year with belligerent comments and has resumed military-to-military dialogue with the US ahead of official exchanges including a visit by Hu Jintao, China’s president, to Washington next month....The US navy complained last year that its vessels had been harassed by Chinese ships in international waters. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said earlier this year he had “gone from being curious about where China is headed to being concerned about it”.

The current downsizing of the Defense budget, the current strategy of the US Navy to be providers of humanitarian care, and the general dislike of the military by the current Administration, plays into China's hand. Curious to concerned is an understatement.